Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mia T

The water's ok, or at least it used to be, unfortunately being within the primary market area of, and the cumulative toxic contamination by, the NYT, Yale, Harvard, The Hartford Courant, and the major broadcasting networks, led to cultural breaking point such that in the mid 80's in West Hartford, when a nutcase ex-husband shot his wifes mother in one location and then later the same night shot the wife and her new boyfriend, whom the killer had handcuffed together, in the middle of the street, so when the trial for murder of these complete innocents went to the Connecticut jury, they were unable to vote for a death penalty for a triple murder, premediated and carried out over a series of hours. I left the state soon afterward.

In yuppiedom, hamburgers come from the grocery store not dead cattle. The dying are shipped to 'hospice'. There is no evil, because they have lost the ability to recognize evil, except of course the evil of republicanism, conservatism, and traditional religions.


80 posted on 10/06/2006 10:39:48 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: Gail Wynand; All

I think Shays and Lieberman recognized the evil.

Listen to Shays.

Read the first half of Lieberman's bifurcated speech on the floor of the Senate. Here is an excerpt:

The president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky not only contradicted the values he has publicly embraced over the last six years, it has, I fear, compromised his moral authority at a time when Americans of every political persuasion agree that the decline of the family is one of the most pressing problems we are facing.

Nevertheless, I believe the president could have lessened the harm his relationship with Ms. Lewinksy has caused if he had acknowledged his mistake and spoken with candor about it to the American people shortly after it became public in January.

But, as we now know, he chose not to do this. This deception is particularly troubling because it was not just a reflexive, and many ways, understandable human act of concealment to protect himself and his family from what he called the embarrassment of his own conduct when he was confronted with it in the deposition in the Jones case. But rather, it was the intentional and pre-meditated decision to do so.

In choosing this path, I fear that the president has undercut the efforts of millions of American parents who are naturally trying to instill in our children the value of honesty. As most any mother and father knows, kids have a singular ability to detect double standards. So, we can safely assume that it will be that much more difficult to convince our sons and daughters of the importance of telling the truth when the most powerful man in the nation evades it. Many parents I have spoken with in Connecticut confirm this unfortunate consequence.

The president's intentional and consistent statements, more deeply,may also undercut the trust that the American people have in his word. Under the Constitution, as presidential scholar Newsted (ph) has noted, the president's ultimate source of authority, particularly his moral authority, is the power to persuade, to mobilize public opinion, to build consensus behind a common agenda. And at this, the president has been extraordinarily effective.

But that power hinges on the president's support among the American people and their faith and confidence in his motivations and agenda, yes; but also in his word.

As Teddy Roosevelt once explained, "My power vanishes into thin air the instant that my fellow citizens, who are straight and honest, cease to believe that I represent them and fight for what is straight and honest. That is all the strength that I have," Roosevelt said.

Sadly, with his deception, President Clinton may have weakened the great power and strength that he possesses, of which President Roosevelt spoke.

I know this is a concern that may of my colleagues share, which is to say that the president has hurt his credibility and therefore perhaps his chances of moving his policy agenda forward.

But I believe that the harm the president's actions have caused extend beyond the political arena. I am afraid that the misconduct the president has admitted may be reinforcing one of the worst messages being delivered by our popular culture, which is that values are fungible. And I am concerned that his misconduct may help to blur some of the most important bright lines of right and wrong in our society.

No. As I argue above, I think Lieberman and Shay were influenced more by their own pathologic self-interest---what was good for them--rather than by what was evil, what was perilous for this country.

A man who
rapes women, a wife who, in her lust for power re-abuses those women without a second thought, are, by definition, unfit to lead. Period. End of story.

Christopher Shays, and certainly the smarter, supposedly more moral man, Joe Lieberman, would have known that instinctively.

But they chose pathologic self-interest instead of the interest of this country. And the rise of terrorism, 9/11, civilization in the balance, are the sorry endpoint.




86 posted on 10/07/2006 6:00:35 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson